Partly allowed

The Director v. T. Chidanandappa

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2021MFA/103615/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 regarding compensation for a workman injured on duty. The High Court held that while employer-employee relationship and disability assessment were adequately established, the award of interest from the date of accident was contrary to Supreme Court precedent requiring a 30-day delay.

What did the court decide?

Interest on the compensation award is held to be payable from 30 days after the date of the accident.

The Director Vs T. Chidanandappa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶5

M.F.A No.103615/2016 (WC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

The Director, Sandur Udyog Private Limited, Sandur Post, Ballari District.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

(By Sri. Ravi Hegde, Advocate)

¶10

AND

¶11

T. Chidanandappa, S/o. T. Tayappa, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Mechanic/Operator in SUPL Company Sandur, R/o. Subbarayanahalli, Sandur Taluk, Ballari District.

¶12

1. M/s. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., By its Branch Manager, Ballari. . . . Respondents

¶13

(By Sri. Amaregouda, Advocate for R1; Sri. S.K. Kayakamath, Advocate for R2)

¶14

¶15

This appeal is fired under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, against the judgment and award dated 26.04.2016, passed in ECA No.101/2014, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT –V, Ballari awarding compensation of Rs.74,872/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till its realization.

¶16

This MFA coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Heard the learned counsel.

¶19

This appeal is filed challenging the award dated 26.04.2016 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V at Ballari in ECA No.101/2014.

¶20

Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that respondent No.1, who was working as a Mechanic cum Operator under the appellant, on 24.09.1999 while he was so working, due to slip of compressor which hit him, sustained injuries to his trunk and pelvic region. Immediately, thereafter he took treatment at VIMS Hospital, Bellari. However, despite treatment, he sustained permanent disability. Hence, he filed application

¶21

¶22

No.791/1999 under Section 10 of Workmen’s

¶23

Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘W.C. Act’ for short) seeking compensation from the employer and insurer. After consideration an award dated 23.02.2004 came to be passed determining the compensation of Rs.74,872/- with interest @ 12% per annum against the appellant herein. Respondent No.2 insurer was absolved of its liability as there was no insurance coverage.

¶24

Challenging the said award the appellant had earlier filed MFA No.10155/2006 contending that due to incorrect description of name of appellant Company, it was denied an opportunity of participation in the proceedings. The appeal was allowed on 29.11.2010 and matter was remanded for passing fresh award after giving an opportunity to appellant to cross examine workman witnesses and also to lead evidence.

¶25

¶26

Subsequent to remand, claimant has got himself

¶27

examined as PW-1 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.6. The Doctor who assessed the disability of the claimant is examined as PW.2. Thereafter, appellant examined one of its Officials as RW-1. RW-1 in his evidence disputed the incident on the ground that there was no drizzling as alleged by petitioner in application, during May 1999 and contended that the accident did not occur during the course of employment and it was not arising out of employment. However, RW-1 admitted the employment of the claimant on a monthly salary of Rs.975/- and subsidized ration. But disputed the payment of bhata of Rs.20/- per day.

¶28

On consideration, Tribunal was pleased to take age of claimant as 30 years based on Exs.P.2 and P.3medical records, considering disability of 30% as assessed by PW-2-Doctor, and by considering his monthly income as Rs.2,000/-, the minimum wages prevailing on date of accident, determined total compensation of Rs.74,872/-

¶29

¶30

with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident till realization. Challenging the same the employer is in appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel Sri. Ravi Hegde submitted that even after remand by this Court, there was absolutely no application or any measures taken by claimants to amend the claim petition, but there was an amendment in the claim petition not supported by any application or order of the Tribunal and hence the award passed against the appellant would be illegal. Apart from said contention, it was submitted that claimant did not establish that accident in question occurred during employment and arose out of employment and that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that accident occurred during course of employment and out of employment.

¶32

Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned award is contrary to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Siby George and others reported in (2012) 12 SCC

¶33

¶34

540, insofar as award of interest from date of accident and same is also required to be considered in this appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the following substantial questions of law arose for consideration in this appeal.

¶35

(1) Whether the trial Judge was justified in permitting to change name of appellant in impugned judgment without any specific orders passed on any application for correction?

¶36

(2) Whether the impugned award is /was sustainable without the trial Court recording a finding that the accident arose during the course of and out of employment?

¶37

(3) Whether the trial Judge was justified in accepting the extent of disability assessed by PW-2 – Doctor without any corroboration?

¶38

(4) Whether the impugned award is justified in directing payment of interest from date of accident instead of ordering it payable from 30 days after date of award?

¶39

On the other hand, Sri. Amaregouda, learned counsel submitted that claimants had led evidence and produced copy of the MLC report as Ex.P.1, copy of discharge summary issued by hospital as Exs.P.2 and P.3

¶40

¶41

respectively, Ration card issued by the employer for subsidized ration as Ex.P.4, Disability certificate issued by Doctor as Ex.P.5 and X.ray as Ex.P.6. The said documents establish that the workman sustained injuries due to an accident that had occurred during employment and therefore the assessment made by the doctor was just and proper and no substantial question of law arose for consideration of this appeal.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - insurer submitted that he was a formal party in this appeal, as there was no liability and no insurance policy issued to cover the risk of accident in question.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶44

From the above it is seen that the appellant is disputing relationship of employer and employee, and the injuries suffered by claimant caused during the course of employment and out of employment. It is also disputing

¶45

¶46

the extent of disability and the date from which it is liable to pay interest.

¶47

Though the appellant has contended that the name of the appellant was changed without any orders, it is seen from the records that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation had on an earlier occasion passed an award in W.C.No.791/1999 against the Director, Skand Udyog Pvt., Ltd., Sandur. The appellant challenged the same in M.F.A.No.10155/2006 on the ground that the description of the appellant was not correct and it had succeeded in getting the matter remanded back to the Commissioner. Pursuant to order passed in M.F.A.No.10155/2006, the appellant had entered appearance and contested the matter before the trial Court. No objection was raised about correction of its name. The appellant, in any case, availed opportunity before the trial Court. The above contention is purely technical and not substantive, therefore, the same does not merit consideration.

¶48

¶49

The claimant in the application and in his

¶50

evidence has stated that he was working with the appellant as an operator. In order to establish his employment, he has produced Ex.P.4 - the Ration Card issued by the employer to avail subsidized grains to its employees. It bears the name of the claimant. Even Ex.P.1 MLC report mentions history of injury as fall while working in Sandur Udyog Pvt., Ltd., Sandur. The medical records Ex.P.2 and P.3 corroborate the treatment taken to the injury mentioned in Ex.P.1. Hence, from Ex.P.1 to P.4, it can be ascertained that the claimant was an employee of the appellant and suffered injury during course of employment. Though a feeble attempt is made to contend that the accident did not occur out of employment as the claimant stated that he was injured by compressor hitting him while he was blowing air into the tyres of lorry, the fact that the said work was being undertaken by the claimant during employment presumes the same to be on instructions of the employer. The incident occurred inside

¶51

¶52

the premises belonging to appellant. In the absence of any specific evidence on the part of the appellant, the finding of the trial Judge on this aspect does not call for any interference.

¶53

Insofar as the percentage of disability, Ex.P.5

¶54

mentions claimant sustained following injuries:

¶55

1) Scar (operated) on the back in the midline.

¶56

2) Spasm of muscles of back.

¶57

3) Paresis of both lower limbs IV to V.

¶58

4) Restriction of movements of back.

¶59

5) Difficulty in carrying heavy objects.

¶60

6) X-ray shows compression of L3 with instill mentalins (implants).

¶61

The Doctor examined as PW-2 certified that

¶62

disability suffered by claimant due to above injuries as permanent in nature to the extent of 30% to the limb. The same is supported by the X-ray film produced as Ex.P.6. The appellant has utterly failed to establish that the percentage of disability assessed by PW-2 as not being supported by the facts or being excessive. Therefore, assessment of compensation by Tribunal is just and proper. In view of the fact that there is no insurance

¶63

¶64

coverage, fastening of the liability to pay compensation on the appellant is also just and proper.

¶65

In view of the above, it is held that the proposed substantial questions of law with regard to relationship of employer and employee, alteration of name of appellant, assessment of disability do not arise for consideration in this appeal.

¶66

However, insofar as the award of interest from the date of accident, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siby George’s case ( supra ) has held that the same would be payable from 30 days after the accident, referring to subsection (3) of Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. In the case on hand, the trial Judge has ordered the same to be payable from the date of accident. The same is contrary to the provision of law and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the substantial question of law proposed for consideration with regard to interest only is held arising for

¶67

¶68

consideration in this appeal. Referring to Siby George ( supra ), it is answered in favour of the appellant.

¶69

In the result, appeal is allowed in part only insofar as interest on the award. It is held that interest on the compensation is payable from 30 days after the date of accident.

¶70

No order as to costs.

¶71

The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transferred to the trial Court for payment.

¶72

Sd/- JUDGE

¶73

BVK

The Director v. T. Chidanandappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director v. T. Chidanandappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Ramesh S/O. S Vittal Rao Vs Smt.R. Pushpalata W/O. R Rajendra

State of Karnataka Vs Lingaraj S/O Shivappa Banakar

Shrinivas Narayan Pal Vs Subhadhar Narayan Shetty

Shantaram S/O. Yashawant Nandodkar Vs Laxman S/O. Ravalu Nandodkar

Smt. Ratnavva W/O Vijaykumar Mahajan Vs Shri. Nandeppa Chanabasappa Myageri

The Divisional Manager, Vs Shevanta W/O Late Dinakar Barage